15 ms·

Google cancels domain registration for Daily Stormer

107 points by coloneltcb 9y ago

kbody 9y ago
We need more dumb-pipe-like services. It's one to fight SOPA-PIPA for something that affects directly your users and your business and it's another to being "forced" by pressure on social matters that don't directly affect your users/clients/business. I would expect or rather hope that companies have their mission and strive on every chance to make that mission a fundamental reality with no compromises. As much as I hate what the Daily Stormer does and what it represents, the reality is that such pressure can come in a different way in the future and be exploited for non-obvious cases. You open a pandora's box when things like that happens. We need more dumb-pipes.
noonespecial 9y ago
Google seems to be in the right here. They aren't a government or even a clear monopoly as a name service provider. The 1st prevents me from using government power to prevent people from saying things I disapprove of, but if they come into my house and say them, I can certainly demand that they leave.
jacquesm 9y ago
America is going to have a hard time reconciling freedom of speech on the one hand and curtailing the new Nazi's on the other.
- ibn_ibid 9y ago
  Not if we realize that free speech doesn't mean letting hate speech go unchecked
  - m-p-3 9y ago
    It's a tough problem to tackle as soon as you throw subjectivity and personal beliefs in the mix.
    - msbarnett 9y ago
      Perhaps, but there aren't exactly "many sides" to a group chanting "gas the kikes" and celebrating the murder -by-car of a counter-protestor. There's no moral grey-area here.
  - at-fates-hands 9y ago
    That's exactly the reason why it exists in the first place. Racist viewpoints? COVERED Misogynistic viewpoints? COVERED Satanism, Cults and "questionable" religious groups? COVERED Pedophiles and MBLA? COVERED Websites that advocate illegal drug use? COVERED Websites that advocate political assassination? COVERED Websites that advocate killing law enforcement officers? COVERED There are limitations to free speech, but the reason it EXISTS is not cover speech YOU approve it, it's for speech people you DO NOT agree with and viewpoints that aren't popular. This is the problem I have with people who say they support freedom of speech, but when it comes to groups like ANTIFA, BLM and others on the left, it's ok to shut down white supremacist websites, but not others exposing the same thing, just on the other side of the aisle. You can't have it both ways, that's why freedom of speech covers EVERYBODY equally.
    - ibn_ibid 9y ago
      >You can't have it both ways, that's why freedom of speech covers EVERYBODY equally. Actually, you can, that's why there are free speech exceptions in US law and protected classes? Hate speech and hate crimes are a real thing. Also "ANTIFA" (it's "Antifa" lol) and BLM aren't monolithic groups - one is an ideology dedicated to fighting fascism and the other is a social justice movement consisting of many decentralized local community orgs. Neither of these are comparable to Nazis literally shouting to gas kikes in the streets and running over peaceful protesters and if you think they are, you might want to check yourself.
      - at-fates-hands 9y ago
        >> Neither of these are comparable to Nazis literally shouting to gas kikes in the streets and running over peaceful protesters and if you think they are, you might want to check yourself. ANTIFA? By it’s very nature Antifa has demonstrated it is a hate group. It attacks Christianity. It attacks white people. It attacks the freedom of speech and assembly. It attacks the very foundation of the country that has allowed them to speak freely while trying to destroy anyone with another idea or a different perspective. Antifa is anathema to what we collectively stand for as a nation and as a people. The irony is their actions are the very EPITOME of Fascism: Fascism is a form of radical authoritarian nationalism, characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and control of industry and commerce, that came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe. BLM openly advocates for the murdering of white police officers. Not sure how that doesn't rise to the level of hate speech. Did you miss the youtube videos of the BLM riot in Milwaukee where the black rioters were actively looking for white people to assault and beat up? Again, how do those actions NOT rise to a hate crime??? If you had white people out trolling for Black people to assault, you'd be screaming at the top of your lungs it was a hate crime, right? >> Nazis literally shouting to gas kikes in the streets and running over peaceful protesters There were no peaceful protestors on either side. Both sides were armed, and there are images of people swinging bats at the car as it went down the street. You can't say the white nationalists were the only ones carrying weapons and looking for a violent confrontation. It was a tragedy what happened, but let's not try and act all morally superior saying one side was "demonstrating" peacefully while the other acted violent. Both sides are culpable here. >> you might want to check yourself. No check needed. If you can't see the hate groups on your own side of the fence, there is little point in arguing is there?
- The_Sponge 9y ago
  This isn't an issue of freedom of speech. You're allowed to say something, and I'm allowed to respond.
  - jacquesm 9y ago
    Allowing Nazi's any platform carries a risk, some memes are best kept away from fertile ground lest they spread. Germany learned that the hard way, I'm curious how the USA will deal with this and if they will manage to control it while keeping the free speech laws. I don't know which way it will go but I can see some problems. I also wonder how many of the 300+ million Americans are now quiet converts waiting in the wings. Scary times.
    - AnotXOR 9y ago
      Are you suggesting that freedom of speech is what allowed or was necessary for the Nazi party to become what they were?
      - jacquesm 9y ago
        Nazism is a meme, just like stupid cat videos and the bible. It spreads from person to person seeking fertile ground in terms of an easy to identify scape-goat and an association with trouble experienced in a persons life. Allowing such memes to spread unchecked is playing roulette with open societies, the question then becomes whether you'd prefer free speech if it becomes the deciding factor in whether or not a thing like that can take root on a scale that it could cause a disaster or whether you forgo free speech to some extent in order to squelch the problem before it gets out of hand. Note that the Nazis themselves were not exactly free speech fans. So even if it isn't a necessity it certainly will help to make it grow, and will allow it to grow faster.
        AnotXOR 9y ago
        Your rationale is exactly what every dictator throughout history has used to protect their power. Every, single, one. You either have free speech and allow all to express their ideas unfettered, or you will end up in a dictatorship sooner or later, guaranteed. To be clear, i'm talking about expressing ideas like "men and women differ biologically" and not speaking about threats/fighting words. Once you start punishing people for their ideas you're on the road to dictatorship, at least if every dictatorship in history is any guide.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- bgun 9y ago
  Neither Google nor GoDaddy represent "America", and neither has an obligation to protect all speech within their respective spheres of influence.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  Freedom of speech isn't a power to mandate that other private parties must help to spread your speech. In fact, it is exactly the freedom for such parties to decline to do so that is included in freedom of speech.
  - jacquesm 9y ago
    No, but that doesn't end at domain services. There are may other parts of the chain from one 'convert' to the next that could be disrupted and a lot of that process centers around free speech. Allowing the speech is tantamount to taking a fairly large risk, the risk of one person being able to infect another with their meme. Hard to stop that from happening when free speech is sacred.
  - falcolas 9y ago
    This is made challenging by the fact that the entirety of the internet is composed of private parties. Should we simply stop expecting anything resembling free speech on the internet?
    - jacquesm 9y ago
      > Should we simply stop expecting anything resembling free speech on the internet? I don't think that was ever the expectation. The internet is a lot larger than the USA. Different countries, different laws.
    - lilyball 9y ago
      Yes. We've never had free speech on the internet. Or rather, we do, but only so far as you're free to set up your own server and host your own site and put whatever you want on it (and if you can't convince a domain registrar to give you a domain, you can always advertise its IP address, or maybe operate a Tor hidden service or something like that). But if you're not willing to host your own site, then free speech on the internet has only been an illusion.
      - the8472 9y ago
        The DNS tree at least probably should get the same treatment as ISPs, i.e. being considered a utility and thus provide service to everyone.
- hkmurakami 9y ago
  Reminds me of this whole circus from my alma mater's reunions this year: >The Princeton University’s class of 2012 had plans to dress up for their five-year reunion, but their choice of wearing stormtrooper masks from Star Wars got derailed when someone used the magic word - >Nazis. http://www.dailywire.com/news/14043/princeton-reunion-cancels-star-wars-stormtrooper-hank-berrien# http://www.dailywire.com/news/14043/princeton-reunion-cancel... Amusingly, an alum quipped on a FB post at the time about actual holocaust survivors not having raised a fuss about the term when the original films came out in the 70's.
  - webkike 9y ago
    Well, that last part can be explained by the Empire being a generic metaphor for oppressive regimes. The Empire wasn't exactly a morally ambiguous character.
    - fhood 9y ago
      I mean, how bad is blowing up a planet really?
      - jrs95 9y ago
        I mean, what if that planet has the hidden headquarters of ISIS on it? Better to be safe than sorry.
      - Melchizedek 9y ago
        It's the sci-fi version of nuking two cities and firebombing every civilian population center in an entire country.
    - paganel 9y ago
      > Empire being a generic metaphor for oppressive regimes It wasn't always like this. The best example is the Roman Empire in the time of Augustus, with its Pax Romana and everything related to it, which wasn't seen as a bad thing by lots of writers during the centuries that followed it. The second example that comes to mind is the Investiture Controversy from the early Middle Ages (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investiture_Controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investiture_Controversy), which saw the Papacy ideologically battling it out against the Holy Roman Empire, and the Holy Roman Empire was definitely not seen as oppressive or anything the like. On a more generic note, us Christian Orthodox use the phrase "The Empire from the Skies" (my not so good translation, here's the wiki article on it in Romanian which literally translates as "God's Empire" : https://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%8Emp%C4%83r%C4%83%C8%9Bia_lui_Dumnezeu https://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%8Emp%C4%83r%C4%83%C8%9Bia_...), and, again, the term "empire" is not seen as oppressive or anything similar, quite the contrary.
- abawany 9y ago
  I believe that American courts have been examining this situation for some time and have imposed restrictions that they deemed reasonable: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the... .
  - syshum 9y ago
    It's Time to Stop Using the 'Fire in a Crowded Theater' Quote https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time-to-stop-using-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/ https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-tim... Without fail, whenever a free speech controversy hits, someone will cite this phrase as proof of limits on the First Amendment. And whatever that controversy may be, "the law"--as some have curiously called it--can be interpreted to suggest that we should err on the side of censorship. Holmes' quote has become a crutch for every censor in America, yet the quote is wildly misunderstood. those who quote Holmes might want to actually read the case where the phrase originated before using it as their main defense. If they did, they'd realize it was never binding law, and the underlying case, U.S. v. Schenck, is not only one of the most odious free speech decisions in the Court's history, but was overturned over 40 years ago. Three Generations of a Hackneyed Apologia for Censorship Are Enough https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-hackneyed-apologia-for-censorship-are-enough/ https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-ha... Holmes' famous quote is the go-to argument by appeal to authority for anyone who wants to suggest that some particular utterance is not protected by the First Amendment. Its relentless overuse is annoying and unpersuasive to most people concerned with the actual history and progress of free speech jurisprudence. People tend to cite the "fire in a crowded theater" quote for two reasons First, they trot out the Holmes quote for the proposition that not all speech is protected by the First Amendment. But this is not in dispute. Saying it is not an apt or persuasive argument for the proposition that some particular speech is unprotected, any more than saying "well, some speech is protected by the First Amendment" is a persuasive argument to the contrary. Second, people tend to cite Holmes to imply that there is some undisclosed legal authority showing that the speech they are criticizing is not protected by the First Amendment. This is dishonest at worst and unconvincing at best. If you have a pertinent case showing that particular speech falls outside the First Amendment, you don't have to rely on a 90-year-old rhetorical flourish to support your argument. Holmes' quote is the most famous and pervasive lazy cheat in American dialogue about free speech.
- scottLobster 9y ago
  Google is a private entity, they could quite legally de-list all neo-nazi sites with zero consequences. Before Google newspapers were the primary source of people's information, was there a massive outcry that the New York Times and Washington Post didn't run neo-nazi stories?
  - jacquesm 9y ago
    Google news has done an excellent job of promoting breitbart.com.
  - yahna 9y ago
    The washington post and new york times don't have a monopoly. I'd also be fine if they dropped them from search. I'm not fine with them abusing their status as a domain registrar.
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      Google doesn't have a monopoly as a registrar, either.
    - scottLobster 9y ago
      How is this abuse? Is access to web-hosting a right now? Going back to my newspaper example, you might as well say possession of a printing press is a right. If I violate the terms of my lease I can be evicted. If you violate your registrar's terms of service your website can be shut down. This is not a new concept, not is it somehow special because it's "on the internet".
    - ardaozkal 9y ago
      Daily Stormer reportedly violated ToS, though when I checked ToS yesterday, it was pretty clear that they didn't outright ban such content, but yeah, they aren't abusing it, they're enforcing the rules Daily Stormer agreed to follow but failed to.
- smhenderson 9y ago
  Google is under no obligation to provide a platform for free speech. Only the US Government is bound by laws like the first amendment.
- rbanffy 9y ago
  Nazis can always find the nearest beer hall and do their nazi things there.
gist 9y ago
It still resolves: nslookup DAILYSTORMER.COM Server: 8.8.8.8 Address: 8.8.8.8#53 Non-authoritative answer: Name: DAILYSTORMER.COM Address: 104.25.126.103 Name: DAILYSTORMER.COM Address: 104.25.125.103 And it's not on registrar hold. There is a transfer lock which is automatic because it was just transferred in. So it's unclear what BI even means by 'cancelled'. Something doesn't sound right about this story actually. They certainly don't have grounds to delete the domain based on this: "The extremeist site published a critical story about Heather Heyer, the 32-year-old woman killed when a car rammed into counter-protesters in Charlottesville, VA, over the weekend. The story prompted GoDaddy to give Daily Stormer 24 hours to find a new host for its domain." Not to mention hard to believe godaddy would have said something like that either.
- ibn_ibid 9y ago
  >They certainly don't have grounds to delete the domain based on this It's their service. Hate speech probably violates their ToS.
  - gist 9y ago
    Not seeing hate speech listed here: https://www.godaddy.com/agreements/showdoc.aspx?pageid=UTOS https://www.godaddy.com/agreements/showdoc.aspx?pageid=UTOS https://payments.google.com/payments/apis-secure/get_legal_document?ldo=16267419166080200835&ldt=domainstos&ldr=ZZ&ldl=und https://payments.google.com/payments/apis-secure/get_legal_d...
    - jacquesm 9y ago
      He said probably, but even if it doesn't this is an easy decision for Google. Imagine that they did not do this, the next headline would be: "Google even more evil than GoDaddy, enables Neo Nazis".
    - maxerickson 9y ago
      Is this an escape hatch? Registrant represents and warrants that:...registering or directly or indirectly using the Registered Name will not violate any applicable laws or regulations, legal rights of others, or Google’s rules or policies including: It would seem to include rules and policies not listed in the terms.
jdavis703 9y ago
CloudFlare was also providing anti-DDOS capabilities to this site. It's one thing to defend people's right to free speech from the government, it's another to provide security services for hate speech.
- eridius 9y ago
  CloudFlare provides basic anti-DDOS capabilities to anyone. You may as well complain that their ISP provided an internet connection.
  - themaninthedark 9y ago
    That is the point that these assholes want to reach. Cut off their ability to communicate with anyone and do business with anyone. They are fine with it because it is "for a good cause". But if the pendulum ever starts swinging the other way they will be the loudest to squeal.
pottersbasilisk 9y ago
This is a terrible precedent. Cant wait until they cancel domain registration of sites that disagree with Google.
- 1337biz 9y ago
  Didn't Zuckerberg already kill the 'Fuck Zuck2020' page from Facebook for being hate speech?
  - pottersbasilisk 9y ago
    A quick google search says yes. That is a bad sign, and so is this. My big fear is hate speech will become speaking out against the rich and powerful under the guise of protecting people.
- lilyball 9y ago
  Not everything is a slippery slope.
  - Clubber 9y ago
    Yes, but some things should be protected vehemently.
    - foobarbazetc 9y ago
      Nah.
kareldonk 9y ago
Always good to keep the following quote often attributed to Voltaire in mind : "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- tompagenet2 9y ago
  Google has every right morally and legally to not wish to provide a platform for hate speech.
  - wang_li 9y ago
    The more Google chooses what content is hosted on their platforms, the less authentic their claims of independence from the content and the more liability to which they should be exposed.
    - foobarbazetc 9y ago
      They're not hosting anything. These Nazis got kicked off one registrar and decided to make it Google's problem. Companies have every right to choose who they do business with. There are plenty of registrars out there that have no issues with hate speech. This is just a PR exercise for the Nazis.
      - wang_li 9y ago
        I was responding to the general statement made in the comment to which I replied.
  - desbest 9y ago
    The funny thing about hate speech is that no one can make a unanimous conclusion for what hate speech is. Nowadays hate speech is a euphamism for any idea or opinion someone doesn't like, so the term hate speech has lost its meaning. It now means using gender pronouns to refer to people, using gendered job names, saying that men and women are born with different brains, saying that there's only 2 genders, saying that feminism is cancer, saying there's a link between islam and terrorism, saying that black people underachieve in society due to genetics instead of the evil racist oppressive white male - and much more.
damnfine 9y ago
Even hate speech is free speech. The public private nature of the internet is the only issue here. I am really getting scared and disgusted by all the 'nazi punchers' showing themselves here. To support someones right to free speech is not the same as supporting the content of said speech.
- _jgvg 9y ago
  > To support someones right to free speech is not the same as supporting the content of said speech. Supporting someone's right to free speech doesn't mean enabling them to. I support the right of the Nazis to voice their (IMHO completely absurd) speech, but if I had a business, I'd have guidelines against that type of speech in my business. In the same way, I wouldn't welcome one into my house. None of those measures infringes on their freedom of speech.
  - 21 9y ago
    https://www.wsj.com/articles/court-rules-baker-cant-refuse-to-make-wedding-cake-for-gay-couple-1439506296 https://www.wsj.com/articles/court-rules-baker-cant-refuse-t...
    - Larrikin 9y ago
      There are protected classes in America because of Jim Crow. Its the same as refusing to bake a cake for someone because they are black.
  - trav4225 9y ago
    But would you bake them a Nazi cake? ;-)
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  There's a difference between supporting your right to free speech and giving you a megaphone. I can do the former while declining, no matter what you are willing to pay, to do the latter. Free speech is not entitlement to others’ active collaboration in transmitting your speech.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
desbest 9y ago
I will stop using Gmail and move my email elsewhere as google banned the accounts of Jordan B Peterson and Dennis Cooper, people who do NOT spread hate. Google is a SJW company.
- Eleopteryx 9y ago
  Why are you mentioning this reasoning in the context of DailyStormer?
Animats 9y ago
Domain registrars have no business doing this. Originally, they just registered domains for ICANN. Now they act like they own them and just rent them out.
- cft 9y ago
  Even though I strongly disagree with the content, I think it's an awful precedent. Perhaps they should complain to ICANN (although I think the intellectual level there may be too low for a meaningful complaint) ?
  - problems 9y ago
    Indeed, I know now that I will never own a domain via GoDaddy or Google. GoDaddy was already a known bad actor, but Google is an interesting one to add to that list. Buy only from those who are willing to host controversial content - DynaDot has secured the wikileaks domain for years for example and gone to bat for them in court. That's the type of thing I want from a registrar. Those who don't protect their own customers are not worth a penny.
- CalChris 9y ago
  > Domain registrars have no business doing this. Why do you think that Google doesn't have the right (business) to do this? They are not the sole registrar. Is there some contract with ICAAN which specifies this as a duty owed? > Originally, they just registered domains for ICANN. Now they act like they own them and just rent them out. This is exactly backwards. Google is refusing to act like they own them. They're refusing to have anything to do with them.
  - yahna 9y ago
    > Is there some contract with ICAAN which specifies this as a duty owed? There should be. ICAAN should stop allowing Google to do any registrations. This is ridiculous.
    - the8472 9y ago
birken 9y ago
If we are framing this as a free speech issue: Isn't spam email free speech? How dare any network provider tell me I can't send 500 billion emails about my Viagra supplements? That is violating my freedom of speech! The US government has actually passed laws making spam email legal (CAN-SPAM, under certain conditions), and still most every reputable network provider will not let you send it on their networks, even if it is legal. I'm not suggesting the particular issue in the OP is the same as spam, but clearly there are some boundaries of free speech on networks that everybody seems to agree are good.
- Taniwha 9y ago
  In the US the 1st amendment constrains what the govt can do, it doesn't constrain private individuals or companies
  - trav4225 9y ago
    ...yet. ;)
- notruthallowed 9y ago
  Unpopular political speech as preciously what the 1st ammendment is for.
- mike_hearn 9y ago
  Former anti-spam guy here. Spam is hardly something everyone agrees on. There are big grey areas where people spam without thinking they're spamming, and yes they do get upset about it. The primary moral and legal defence the big email providers have with respect to spam filters is that they're essentially democratic: they're powered by user reports. So if someone complains to Google that their mail goes into the spam folder, Google can just say "it's our users fault, figure out how to make them happy" and that's a good answer that puts them back in the driving seat. Also, users can whitelist mail if they disagree with the mail providers opinion. Spam is ultimately not a matter of politics then, it's a matter of aggregate user opinion on what sort of mail they want vs don't want. This particular issue seems rather different. There are no user votes involved here and it's unclear why you'd want such a system anyway, given that people who disagree with a website can just not visit it. There is no way for visitors who disagree with Google's assessment to access the site anyway. And so on.
eeks 9y ago
Regardless of the topic, censorship (private or public) can never be an acceptable reaction. To quote Louis Brandeis (Supreme Court Justice): "If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence." EDIT: I was not expecting to be downvoted when quoting a SCOTUS Justice arguing for openness of debates, education and spreading of knowledge. I'm savoring the irony.
- maxerickson 9y ago
  This is a stronger comment if you first make the case that refusal to do business with someone is censorship. I mean, I see at least a vague analogy between not doing business with Nazis and not inviting boring people over for dinner. Is choosing dinner guests censorship?
  - eeks 9y ago
    It becomes censorship when all accesses to a medium (ie. DNS resolvers) are privatized. In other words, if all private providers refuse them access to a medium and if we agree this people still have rights, there is nothing in place to defend these rights. The collective action to refuse them access is therefore censorship.
    - kevingadd 9y ago
      So what you're suggesting is that DNS and domain registration and web hosting should all be public services operated by the government, because only the government is obligated to protect internet content from censorship? Or are you simply arguing that private businesses should be required to accept money from anyone to host any content, including content that is illegal in other countries or content that is against their personal beliefs?
      - eeks 9y ago
        Those are real questions to which I don't have an answer. Although I don't believe web hosting is the problem here. Anyone can build a server and have it accessed using his own IP. So censorship (by design or as a byproduct) would be hard to achieve (except DDoS obviously). Registrar are a lot more relevant because they are a service that make internet addresses intelligible to humans. So preventing one from accessing this service (either by design or as a byproduct) is an hindrance to their ability to communicate more broadly the content of their server. Same goes with search engines BTW. Also, there is another solutions worth exploring: decentralized DNS registration.
mnm1 9y ago
Is there anything preventing these fucking nazis from becoming a domain registrar? Or finding a company with no morals willing to host their domain? I don't see why they can't do one of the above. There's no duty on the part of Godaddy, Google, or any other company to provide these fuckers with service. Let them figure it out themselves if they want to stay online. This isn't a free speech issue. They have the right to say whatever they want. They do not have a right to force others to help them say whatever they want.
- dogma1138 9y ago
  Would you say the same thing if this was an LGBT group?
  - balls187 9y ago
    This is a false equivalence. LGBT groups aren't known for committing crimes against humanity.
    - dogma1138 9y ago
      No this isn't false equivalence, either all speech is free or no speech is free. Where speech threatens one of your other freedoms then it should be judged on a case by case basis. This also brings net neutrality into play, DNS is a core internet service, without it the internet cannot function. We have now 2 internet service providers effectively refusing to provide services to some one based on political and subjective perception of the content rather than an objective one based in law. This isn't even Google or GoDaddy giving a fuck about human rights, there are plenty of hate groups on Google Groups and plenty of subhuman content hosted directly on GoDaddy. Do you think GoDaddy didn't knew what they were providing DNS services too? they do KYC both individually and collectively any internet service provider these days gets a threat report based on it's customers because of the threat of hacktivism. Nazi's didn't rise in germany because they were allowed a platform to speak from, they've risen because they've silenced anyone who opposed them. Silencing the opposition should never be acceptable to anyone that holds even a shred of liberal values.
MichaelBurge 9y ago
Why do we need registrars at all? They don't seem to do a whole lot, but they charge quite a bit for it. The "service" they provide is handed down from a pseudo-government organization. I suppose someone needs to resolve naming conflicts, and charge rent so unused domains eventually go away. I wonder if anyone's made a DNS system where the registry can detect conflicts but doesn't actually know what domains you own. So you pay $10 for some encryption key or something, which happens to correspond to a domain, but nobody including the registrar can tell which domain the key maps to. If you stop paying, the domain stops resolving; but nobody knows who's paying.
syphilis2 9y ago
What is the option for someone to register a domain name if every domain registrar refuses to do business with them? I may have the terminology wrong, since the domain is registered but needs to be transferred to another registrar.
badwulf 9y ago
I am not familiar with the content on the Daily Stormer. Speech is free speech until it incites violence, if the Daily Stormer incited violence then they should have banned them for that reason instead of invoking a vague ToC. If all the Daily Stormer had is some crap about <insert your favourite race here> is genetically superior or similar crap like that, then they shouldn't have been banned imho. You can find many made up content and pseudoscience on left leaning sites, Google has yet to ban them. These sites should have clear rules instead of vague ToCs and maybe the state should get involved to ensure that the USA won't become the next China.

107 points by coloneltcb 9y ago

We need more dumb-pipe-like services. It's one to fight SOPA-PIPA for something that affects directly your users and your business and it's another to being "forced" by pressure on social matters that don't directly affect your users/clients/business. I would expect or rather hope that companies have their mission and strive on every chance to make that mission a fundamental reality with no compromises. As much as I hate what the Daily Stormer does and what it represents, the reality is that such pressure can come in a different way in the future and be exploited for non-obvious cases. You open a pandora's box when things like that happens. We need more dumb-pipes.

noonespecial 9y ago

Google seems to be in the right here. They aren't a government or even a clear monopoly as a name service provider. The 1st prevents me from using government power to prevent people from saying things I disapprove of, but if they come into my house and say them, I can certainly demand that they leave.

jacquesm 9y ago

America is going to have a hard time reconciling freedom of speech on the one hand and curtailing the new Nazi's on the other.

ibn_ibid 9y ago
Not if we realize that free speech doesn't mean letting hate speech go unchecked
- m-p-3 9y ago
  It's a tough problem to tackle as soon as you throw subjectivity and personal beliefs in the mix.
  - msbarnett 9y ago
    Perhaps, but there aren't exactly "many sides" to a group chanting "gas the kikes" and celebrating the murder -by-car of a counter-protestor. There's no moral grey-area here.
- at-fates-hands 9y ago
  That's exactly the reason why it exists in the first place. Racist viewpoints? COVERED Misogynistic viewpoints? COVERED Satanism, Cults and "questionable" religious groups? COVERED Pedophiles and MBLA? COVERED Websites that advocate illegal drug use? COVERED Websites that advocate political assassination? COVERED Websites that advocate killing law enforcement officers? COVERED There are limitations to free speech, but the reason it EXISTS is not cover speech YOU approve it, it's for speech people you DO NOT agree with and viewpoints that aren't popular. This is the problem I have with people who say they support freedom of speech, but when it comes to groups like ANTIFA, BLM and others on the left, it's ok to shut down white supremacist websites, but not others exposing the same thing, just on the other side of the aisle. You can't have it both ways, that's why freedom of speech covers EVERYBODY equally.
  - ibn_ibid 9y ago
    >You can't have it both ways, that's why freedom of speech covers EVERYBODY equally. Actually, you can, that's why there are free speech exceptions in US law and protected classes? Hate speech and hate crimes are a real thing. Also "ANTIFA" (it's "Antifa" lol) and BLM aren't monolithic groups - one is an ideology dedicated to fighting fascism and the other is a social justice movement consisting of many decentralized local community orgs. Neither of these are comparable to Nazis literally shouting to gas kikes in the streets and running over peaceful protesters and if you think they are, you might want to check yourself.
    - at-fates-hands 9y ago
      >> Neither of these are comparable to Nazis literally shouting to gas kikes in the streets and running over peaceful protesters and if you think they are, you might want to check yourself. ANTIFA? By it’s very nature Antifa has demonstrated it is a hate group. It attacks Christianity. It attacks white people. It attacks the freedom of speech and assembly. It attacks the very foundation of the country that has allowed them to speak freely while trying to destroy anyone with another idea or a different perspective. Antifa is anathema to what we collectively stand for as a nation and as a people. The irony is their actions are the very EPITOME of Fascism: Fascism is a form of radical authoritarian nationalism, characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and control of industry and commerce, that came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe. BLM openly advocates for the murdering of white police officers. Not sure how that doesn't rise to the level of hate speech. Did you miss the youtube videos of the BLM riot in Milwaukee where the black rioters were actively looking for white people to assault and beat up? Again, how do those actions NOT rise to a hate crime??? If you had white people out trolling for Black people to assault, you'd be screaming at the top of your lungs it was a hate crime, right? >> Nazis literally shouting to gas kikes in the streets and running over peaceful protesters There were no peaceful protestors on either side. Both sides were armed, and there are images of people swinging bats at the car as it went down the street. You can't say the white nationalists were the only ones carrying weapons and looking for a violent confrontation. It was a tragedy what happened, but let's not try and act all morally superior saying one side was "demonstrating" peacefully while the other acted violent. Both sides are culpable here. >> you might want to check yourself. No check needed. If you can't see the hate groups on your own side of the fence, there is little point in arguing is there?
The_Sponge 9y ago
This isn't an issue of freedom of speech. You're allowed to say something, and I'm allowed to respond.
- jacquesm 9y ago
  Allowing Nazi's any platform carries a risk, some memes are best kept away from fertile ground lest they spread. Germany learned that the hard way, I'm curious how the USA will deal with this and if they will manage to control it while keeping the free speech laws. I don't know which way it will go but I can see some problems. I also wonder how many of the 300+ million Americans are now quiet converts waiting in the wings. Scary times.
  - AnotXOR 9y ago
    Are you suggesting that freedom of speech is what allowed or was necessary for the Nazi party to become what they were?
    - jacquesm 9y ago
      Nazism is a meme, just like stupid cat videos and the bible. It spreads from person to person seeking fertile ground in terms of an easy to identify scape-goat and an association with trouble experienced in a persons life. Allowing such memes to spread unchecked is playing roulette with open societies, the question then becomes whether you'd prefer free speech if it becomes the deciding factor in whether or not a thing like that can take root on a scale that it could cause a disaster or whether you forgo free speech to some extent in order to squelch the problem before it gets out of hand. Note that the Nazis themselves were not exactly free speech fans. So even if it isn't a necessity it certainly will help to make it grow, and will allow it to grow faster.
      - AnotXOR 9y ago
        Your rationale is exactly what every dictator throughout history has used to protect their power. Every, single, one. You either have free speech and allow all to express their ideas unfettered, or you will end up in a dictatorship sooner or later, guaranteed. To be clear, i'm talking about expressing ideas like "men and women differ biologically" and not speaking about threats/fighting words. Once you start punishing people for their ideas you're on the road to dictatorship, at least if every dictatorship in history is any guide.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
bgun 9y ago
Neither Google nor GoDaddy represent "America", and neither has an obligation to protect all speech within their respective spheres of influence.
dragonwriter 9y ago
Freedom of speech isn't a power to mandate that other private parties must help to spread your speech. In fact, it is exactly the freedom for such parties to decline to do so that is included in freedom of speech.
- jacquesm 9y ago
  No, but that doesn't end at domain services. There are may other parts of the chain from one 'convert' to the next that could be disrupted and a lot of that process centers around free speech. Allowing the speech is tantamount to taking a fairly large risk, the risk of one person being able to infect another with their meme. Hard to stop that from happening when free speech is sacred.
- falcolas 9y ago
  This is made challenging by the fact that the entirety of the internet is composed of private parties. Should we simply stop expecting anything resembling free speech on the internet?
  - jacquesm 9y ago
    > Should we simply stop expecting anything resembling free speech on the internet? I don't think that was ever the expectation. The internet is a lot larger than the USA. Different countries, different laws.
  - lilyball 9y ago
    Yes. We've never had free speech on the internet. Or rather, we do, but only so far as you're free to set up your own server and host your own site and put whatever you want on it (and if you can't convince a domain registrar to give you a domain, you can always advertise its IP address, or maybe operate a Tor hidden service or something like that). But if you're not willing to host your own site, then free speech on the internet has only been an illusion.
    - the8472 9y ago
      The DNS tree at least probably should get the same treatment as ISPs, i.e. being considered a utility and thus provide service to everyone.
hkmurakami 9y ago
Reminds me of this whole circus from my alma mater's reunions this year: >The Princeton University’s class of 2012 had plans to dress up for their five-year reunion, but their choice of wearing stormtrooper masks from Star Wars got derailed when someone used the magic word - >Nazis. http://www.dailywire.com/news/14043/princeton-reunion-cancels-star-wars-stormtrooper-hank-berrien# http://www.dailywire.com/news/14043/princeton-reunion-cancel... Amusingly, an alum quipped on a FB post at the time about actual holocaust survivors not having raised a fuss about the term when the original films came out in the 70's.
- webkike 9y ago
  Well, that last part can be explained by the Empire being a generic metaphor for oppressive regimes. The Empire wasn't exactly a morally ambiguous character.
  - fhood 9y ago
    I mean, how bad is blowing up a planet really?
    - jrs95 9y ago
      I mean, what if that planet has the hidden headquarters of ISIS on it? Better to be safe than sorry.
    - Melchizedek 9y ago
      It's the sci-fi version of nuking two cities and firebombing every civilian population center in an entire country.
  - paganel 9y ago
    > Empire being a generic metaphor for oppressive regimes It wasn't always like this. The best example is the Roman Empire in the time of Augustus, with its Pax Romana and everything related to it, which wasn't seen as a bad thing by lots of writers during the centuries that followed it. The second example that comes to mind is the Investiture Controversy from the early Middle Ages (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investiture_Controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investiture_Controversy), which saw the Papacy ideologically battling it out against the Holy Roman Empire, and the Holy Roman Empire was definitely not seen as oppressive or anything the like. On a more generic note, us Christian Orthodox use the phrase "The Empire from the Skies" (my not so good translation, here's the wiki article on it in Romanian which literally translates as "God's Empire" : https://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%8Emp%C4%83r%C4%83%C8%9Bia_lui_Dumnezeu https://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%8Emp%C4%83r%C4%83%C8%9Bia_...), and, again, the term "empire" is not seen as oppressive or anything similar, quite the contrary.
abawany 9y ago
I believe that American courts have been examining this situation for some time and have imposed restrictions that they deemed reasonable: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the... .
- syshum 9y ago
  It's Time to Stop Using the 'Fire in a Crowded Theater' Quote https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time-to-stop-using-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/ https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-tim... Without fail, whenever a free speech controversy hits, someone will cite this phrase as proof of limits on the First Amendment. And whatever that controversy may be, "the law"--as some have curiously called it--can be interpreted to suggest that we should err on the side of censorship. Holmes' quote has become a crutch for every censor in America, yet the quote is wildly misunderstood. those who quote Holmes might want to actually read the case where the phrase originated before using it as their main defense. If they did, they'd realize it was never binding law, and the underlying case, U.S. v. Schenck, is not only one of the most odious free speech decisions in the Court's history, but was overturned over 40 years ago. Three Generations of a Hackneyed Apologia for Censorship Are Enough https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-hackneyed-apologia-for-censorship-are-enough/ https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-ha... Holmes' famous quote is the go-to argument by appeal to authority for anyone who wants to suggest that some particular utterance is not protected by the First Amendment. Its relentless overuse is annoying and unpersuasive to most people concerned with the actual history and progress of free speech jurisprudence. People tend to cite the "fire in a crowded theater" quote for two reasons First, they trot out the Holmes quote for the proposition that not all speech is protected by the First Amendment. But this is not in dispute. Saying it is not an apt or persuasive argument for the proposition that some particular speech is unprotected, any more than saying "well, some speech is protected by the First Amendment" is a persuasive argument to the contrary. Second, people tend to cite Holmes to imply that there is some undisclosed legal authority showing that the speech they are criticizing is not protected by the First Amendment. This is dishonest at worst and unconvincing at best. If you have a pertinent case showing that particular speech falls outside the First Amendment, you don't have to rely on a 90-year-old rhetorical flourish to support your argument. Holmes' quote is the most famous and pervasive lazy cheat in American dialogue about free speech.
scottLobster 9y ago
Google is a private entity, they could quite legally de-list all neo-nazi sites with zero consequences. Before Google newspapers were the primary source of people's information, was there a massive outcry that the New York Times and Washington Post didn't run neo-nazi stories?
- jacquesm 9y ago
  Google news has done an excellent job of promoting breitbart.com.
- yahna 9y ago
  The washington post and new york times don't have a monopoly. I'd also be fine if they dropped them from search. I'm not fine with them abusing their status as a domain registrar.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    Google doesn't have a monopoly as a registrar, either.
  - scottLobster 9y ago
    How is this abuse? Is access to web-hosting a right now? Going back to my newspaper example, you might as well say possession of a printing press is a right. If I violate the terms of my lease I can be evicted. If you violate your registrar's terms of service your website can be shut down. This is not a new concept, not is it somehow special because it's "on the internet".
  - ardaozkal 9y ago
    Daily Stormer reportedly violated ToS, though when I checked ToS yesterday, it was pretty clear that they didn't outright ban such content, but yeah, they aren't abusing it, they're enforcing the rules Daily Stormer agreed to follow but failed to.
smhenderson 9y ago
Google is under no obligation to provide a platform for free speech. Only the US Government is bound by laws like the first amendment.
rbanffy 9y ago
Nazis can always find the nearest beer hall and do their nazi things there.

gist 9y ago

It still resolves: nslookup DAILYSTORMER.COM Server: 8.8.8.8 Address: 8.8.8.8#53 Non-authoritative answer: Name: DAILYSTORMER.COM Address: 104.25.126.103 Name: DAILYSTORMER.COM Address: 104.25.125.103 And it's not on registrar hold. There is a transfer lock which is automatic because it was just transferred in. So it's unclear what BI even means by 'cancelled'. Something doesn't sound right about this story actually. They certainly don't have grounds to delete the domain based on this: "The extremeist site published a critical story about Heather Heyer, the 32-year-old woman killed when a car rammed into counter-protesters in Charlottesville, VA, over the weekend. The story prompted GoDaddy to give Daily Stormer 24 hours to find a new host for its domain." Not to mention hard to believe godaddy would have said something like that either.

ibn_ibid 9y ago
>They certainly don't have grounds to delete the domain based on this It's their service. Hate speech probably violates their ToS.
- gist 9y ago
  Not seeing hate speech listed here: https://www.godaddy.com/agreements/showdoc.aspx?pageid=UTOS https://www.godaddy.com/agreements/showdoc.aspx?pageid=UTOS https://payments.google.com/payments/apis-secure/get_legal_document?ldo=16267419166080200835&ldt=domainstos&ldr=ZZ&ldl=und https://payments.google.com/payments/apis-secure/get_legal_d...
  - jacquesm 9y ago
    He said probably, but even if it doesn't this is an easy decision for Google. Imagine that they did not do this, the next headline would be: "Google even more evil than GoDaddy, enables Neo Nazis".
  - maxerickson 9y ago
    Is this an escape hatch? Registrant represents and warrants that:...registering or directly or indirectly using the Registered Name will not violate any applicable laws or regulations, legal rights of others, or Google’s rules or policies including: It would seem to include rules and policies not listed in the terms.

jdavis703 9y ago

CloudFlare was also providing anti-DDOS capabilities to this site. It's one thing to defend people's right to free speech from the government, it's another to provide security services for hate speech.

eridius 9y ago
CloudFlare provides basic anti-DDOS capabilities to anyone. You may as well complain that their ISP provided an internet connection.
- themaninthedark 9y ago
  That is the point that these assholes want to reach. Cut off their ability to communicate with anyone and do business with anyone. They are fine with it because it is "for a good cause". But if the pendulum ever starts swinging the other way they will be the loudest to squeal.

pottersbasilisk 9y ago

This is a terrible precedent. Cant wait until they cancel domain registration of sites that disagree with Google.

1337biz 9y ago
Didn't Zuckerberg already kill the 'Fuck Zuck2020' page from Facebook for being hate speech?
- pottersbasilisk 9y ago
  A quick google search says yes. That is a bad sign, and so is this. My big fear is hate speech will become speaking out against the rich and powerful under the guise of protecting people.
lilyball 9y ago
Not everything is a slippery slope.
- Clubber 9y ago
  Yes, but some things should be protected vehemently.
  - foobarbazetc 9y ago
    Nah.

kareldonk 9y ago

Always good to keep the following quote often attributed to Voltaire in mind : "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
tompagenet2 9y ago
Google has every right morally and legally to not wish to provide a platform for hate speech.
- wang_li 9y ago
  The more Google chooses what content is hosted on their platforms, the less authentic their claims of independence from the content and the more liability to which they should be exposed.
  - foobarbazetc 9y ago
    They're not hosting anything. These Nazis got kicked off one registrar and decided to make it Google's problem. Companies have every right to choose who they do business with. There are plenty of registrars out there that have no issues with hate speech. This is just a PR exercise for the Nazis.
    - wang_li 9y ago
      I was responding to the general statement made in the comment to which I replied.
- desbest 9y ago
  The funny thing about hate speech is that no one can make a unanimous conclusion for what hate speech is. Nowadays hate speech is a euphamism for any idea or opinion someone doesn't like, so the term hate speech has lost its meaning. It now means using gender pronouns to refer to people, using gendered job names, saying that men and women are born with different brains, saying that there's only 2 genders, saying that feminism is cancer, saying there's a link between islam and terrorism, saying that black people underachieve in society due to genetics instead of the evil racist oppressive white male - and much more.

damnfine 9y ago

Even hate speech is free speech. The public private nature of the internet is the only issue here. I am really getting scared and disgusted by all the 'nazi punchers' showing themselves here. To support someones right to free speech is not the same as supporting the content of said speech.

_jgvg 9y ago
> To support someones right to free speech is not the same as supporting the content of said speech. Supporting someone's right to free speech doesn't mean enabling them to. I support the right of the Nazis to voice their (IMHO completely absurd) speech, but if I had a business, I'd have guidelines against that type of speech in my business. In the same way, I wouldn't welcome one into my house. None of those measures infringes on their freedom of speech.
- 21 9y ago
  https://www.wsj.com/articles/court-rules-baker-cant-refuse-to-make-wedding-cake-for-gay-couple-1439506296 https://www.wsj.com/articles/court-rules-baker-cant-refuse-t...
  - Larrikin 9y ago
    There are protected classes in America because of Jim Crow. Its the same as refusing to bake a cake for someone because they are black.
- trav4225 9y ago
  But would you bake them a Nazi cake? ;-)
dragonwriter 9y ago
There's a difference between supporting your right to free speech and giving you a megaphone. I can do the former while declining, no matter what you are willing to pay, to do the latter. Free speech is not entitlement to others’ active collaboration in transmitting your speech.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

desbest 9y ago

I will stop using Gmail and move my email elsewhere as google banned the accounts of Jordan B Peterson and Dennis Cooper, people who do NOT spread hate. Google is a SJW company.

Eleopteryx 9y ago
Why are you mentioning this reasoning in the context of DailyStormer?

Animats 9y ago

Domain registrars have no business doing this. Originally, they just registered domains for ICANN. Now they act like they own them and just rent them out.

cft 9y ago
Even though I strongly disagree with the content, I think it's an awful precedent. Perhaps they should complain to ICANN (although I think the intellectual level there may be too low for a meaningful complaint) ?
- problems 9y ago
  Indeed, I know now that I will never own a domain via GoDaddy or Google. GoDaddy was already a known bad actor, but Google is an interesting one to add to that list. Buy only from those who are willing to host controversial content - DynaDot has secured the wikileaks domain for years for example and gone to bat for them in court. That's the type of thing I want from a registrar. Those who don't protect their own customers are not worth a penny.
CalChris 9y ago
> Domain registrars have no business doing this. Why do you think that Google doesn't have the right (business) to do this? They are not the sole registrar. Is there some contract with ICAAN which specifies this as a duty owed? > Originally, they just registered domains for ICANN. Now they act like they own them and just rent them out. This is exactly backwards. Google is refusing to act like they own them. They're refusing to have anything to do with them.
- yahna 9y ago
  > Is there some contract with ICAAN which specifies this as a duty owed? There should be. ICAAN should stop allowing Google to do any registrations. This is ridiculous.
  - the8472 9y ago

birken 9y ago

If we are framing this as a free speech issue: Isn't spam email free speech? How dare any network provider tell me I can't send 500 billion emails about my Viagra supplements? That is violating my freedom of speech! The US government has actually passed laws making spam email legal (CAN-SPAM, under certain conditions), and still most every reputable network provider will not let you send it on their networks, even if it is legal. I'm not suggesting the particular issue in the OP is the same as spam, but clearly there are some boundaries of free speech on networks that everybody seems to agree are good.

Taniwha 9y ago
In the US the 1st amendment constrains what the govt can do, it doesn't constrain private individuals or companies
- trav4225 9y ago
  ...yet. ;)
notruthallowed 9y ago
Unpopular political speech as preciously what the 1st ammendment is for.
mike_hearn 9y ago
Former anti-spam guy here. Spam is hardly something everyone agrees on. There are big grey areas where people spam without thinking they're spamming, and yes they do get upset about it. The primary moral and legal defence the big email providers have with respect to spam filters is that they're essentially democratic: they're powered by user reports. So if someone complains to Google that their mail goes into the spam folder, Google can just say "it's our users fault, figure out how to make them happy" and that's a good answer that puts them back in the driving seat. Also, users can whitelist mail if they disagree with the mail providers opinion. Spam is ultimately not a matter of politics then, it's a matter of aggregate user opinion on what sort of mail they want vs don't want. This particular issue seems rather different. There are no user votes involved here and it's unclear why you'd want such a system anyway, given that people who disagree with a website can just not visit it. There is no way for visitors who disagree with Google's assessment to access the site anyway. And so on.

eeks 9y ago

Regardless of the topic, censorship (private or public) can never be an acceptable reaction. To quote Louis Brandeis (Supreme Court Justice): "If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence." EDIT: I was not expecting to be downvoted when quoting a SCOTUS Justice arguing for openness of debates, education and spreading of knowledge. I'm savoring the irony.

maxerickson 9y ago
This is a stronger comment if you first make the case that refusal to do business with someone is censorship. I mean, I see at least a vague analogy between not doing business with Nazis and not inviting boring people over for dinner. Is choosing dinner guests censorship?
- eeks 9y ago
  It becomes censorship when all accesses to a medium (ie. DNS resolvers) are privatized. In other words, if all private providers refuse them access to a medium and if we agree this people still have rights, there is nothing in place to defend these rights. The collective action to refuse them access is therefore censorship.
  - kevingadd 9y ago
    So what you're suggesting is that DNS and domain registration and web hosting should all be public services operated by the government, because only the government is obligated to protect internet content from censorship? Or are you simply arguing that private businesses should be required to accept money from anyone to host any content, including content that is illegal in other countries or content that is against their personal beliefs?
    - eeks 9y ago
      Those are real questions to which I don't have an answer. Although I don't believe web hosting is the problem here. Anyone can build a server and have it accessed using his own IP. So censorship (by design or as a byproduct) would be hard to achieve (except DDoS obviously). Registrar are a lot more relevant because they are a service that make internet addresses intelligible to humans. So preventing one from accessing this service (either by design or as a byproduct) is an hindrance to their ability to communicate more broadly the content of their server. Same goes with search engines BTW. Also, there is another solutions worth exploring: decentralized DNS registration.

mnm1 9y ago

Is there anything preventing these fucking nazis from becoming a domain registrar? Or finding a company with no morals willing to host their domain? I don't see why they can't do one of the above. There's no duty on the part of Godaddy, Google, or any other company to provide these fuckers with service. Let them figure it out themselves if they want to stay online. This isn't a free speech issue. They have the right to say whatever they want. They do not have a right to force others to help them say whatever they want.

dogma1138 9y ago
Would you say the same thing if this was an LGBT group?
- balls187 9y ago
  This is a false equivalence. LGBT groups aren't known for committing crimes against humanity.
  - dogma1138 9y ago
    No this isn't false equivalence, either all speech is free or no speech is free. Where speech threatens one of your other freedoms then it should be judged on a case by case basis. This also brings net neutrality into play, DNS is a core internet service, without it the internet cannot function. We have now 2 internet service providers effectively refusing to provide services to some one based on political and subjective perception of the content rather than an objective one based in law. This isn't even Google or GoDaddy giving a fuck about human rights, there are plenty of hate groups on Google Groups and plenty of subhuman content hosted directly on GoDaddy. Do you think GoDaddy didn't knew what they were providing DNS services too? they do KYC both individually and collectively any internet service provider these days gets a threat report based on it's customers because of the threat of hacktivism. Nazi's didn't rise in germany because they were allowed a platform to speak from, they've risen because they've silenced anyone who opposed them. Silencing the opposition should never be acceptable to anyone that holds even a shred of liberal values.

MichaelBurge 9y ago

Why do we need registrars at all? They don't seem to do a whole lot, but they charge quite a bit for it. The "service" they provide is handed down from a pseudo-government organization. I suppose someone needs to resolve naming conflicts, and charge rent so unused domains eventually go away. I wonder if anyone's made a DNS system where the registry can detect conflicts but doesn't actually know what domains you own. So you pay $10 for some encryption key or something, which happens to correspond to a domain, but nobody including the registrar can tell which domain the key maps to. If you stop paying, the domain stops resolving; but nobody knows who's paying.

syphilis2 9y ago

What is the option for someone to register a domain name if every domain registrar refuses to do business with them? I may have the terminology wrong, since the domain is registered but needs to be transferred to another registrar.

badwulf 9y ago

I am not familiar with the content on the Daily Stormer. Speech is free speech until it incites violence, if the Daily Stormer incited violence then they should have banned them for that reason instead of invoking a vague ToC. If all the Daily Stormer had is some crap about <insert your favourite race here> is genetically superior or similar crap like that, then they shouldn't have been banned imho. You can find many made up content and pseudoscience on left leaning sites, Google has yet to ban them. These sites should have clear rules instead of vague ToCs and maybe the state should get involved to ensure that the USA won't become the next China.